First of pete, learn to quote.
What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers, so yes, oil is center stage.
A lot more than that actually Pete. I served in Bosnia, did that have any economic impact on Canada? What about Somalia, where was the economic impact there? Haiti? Rwanda? The Golan Heights? Cyprus? Egypt? East Timor? The Congo? Every one of these operations that Canada put troops in to had no economic impact on our economy. Read the news and see the good we're doing in 'ghan, you might learn something.
dig a little deeper. It was nearing production stage. Yes it was the most expensive platform ever developed in Canada, but those costs had already been covered. The per unit costs would have been greatly reduced on full production. The project was halted because it would have been the only effective counter to the U2. That fact was pushed by the American aerospace industry on Ike. Dauglas and Lockheed did not like compitition. And of course the Canadian Conservatives liked to suck up to the Americans.
Uh, the Arrow got more expensive per week due to design flaws. They had to utterly redesign the wings to fit the iroquois engines, something that cost tons of money that late in the game. With regard to the Arrow being a counter for the U2, that makes no sense. The Arrow was an all weather interceptor that was simply much faster than anything at that point in history. Why would the U2 shut down the best thing for the defence of North America just so that their BEST
ally wouldn't have a potent aircraft, and as such deny themselves the same fighter? Lastly the U2 is still used today and aircraft can easily tackle them now, so why doesn't the U.S. place this moratorium on all super-sonic aircraft? Oh right, because the whole concept is intellectually bankrupt.
as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.
General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?
So it was a Russian transport, but because I said it, it can't be true. Is there some kind of peculiar bias creeping in here
It wasn't a Russian transport, it was a Russian design. Our CF-18's are made by MacDonald-Douglas, yet they aren't American fighers, they're Canadian. Russia didn't own the aircraft that transport the relief team to New Orleans, it was owned by a French company. As for disagree with you, ever hear of fallacious writing? In a nutshell, your wording of the issue related to the antanov made it sound like we had used a Russian Air Force antanov, I disagreed with the intent of conveying the truth.
so this discredits your response about having the best hardware in the world. In truth we don't. and if we started looking into design and production we would be lightyears ahead of where we are now. We can do it. We need to do it. And often the hardware we could produce would have civilian adoption / use. Like a good twin engine helecopter. But the Americans wouldn't stand for the compitition. Do we even make a decent rifle? I don't think so. We depend on makers such as Colt. and we know their safety record! and their record for smuggling weapons into Canada.
I never said we had the best hardware in the World. I do believe I said, and I quote:
we have some of the most advanced military equipment in the World
Big difference there my friend. With regard to our equipment, there is nothing wrong with anything I listed above. We do have crap equipment, I will admit that, in fact i'm probably one of the chief advocates of getting better stuff, however I refuse to lump all stuff we use as crap. Our small-arms are fine, a lot of our land force vehicles are great, and our Navy has some decent vessels (also some crap ones). With making our own equipment, we do. Our LAV family are all built in Canada, those include:
We've exported Grizzlys and LAV-IIIs to the U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Army Stryker Brigade. In the fall of 2006 France intends to purchase 300 Coyotes after seeing them in action in Afghanistan. As for our rifle, you claim Colt makes it, you're wrong. The C-7, C-7A1, C-7A2, and C8 are all made by Diemaco Canada. They are based on the U.S. M-16A2 and U.S. M-4 Carbine, however are very different in both how they are gas operated and magazine fed. Our barrel on the C-7 is shorter, and we have an entirely different trigger mechanism to improve accuracy. Our weapons in terms of small arms are great. You can take a C-7, bury it in sand (which i've practically done), and it'll fire fine. The U.S. M-16A2 doesn't fire well in cold weather due to how its gas cycle works. We took that flaw and improved it on our C-7s, which fire fine in temperatures up to -50. Lastly we have exported C-7's and C-8's Word wide. In fact the Dutch Army has bought 50,000 C-7s and the Danish Marines use the C-7 due to how well it performs when wet. Also Belgium, France, and Spain have bought C-7's. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this issue Pete, or at least try not to argue it with a soldier. Whatever suits you best.